VI

VITHE POSSET-POTAND THEPORRINGERCOMMONWEALTH PORRINGER. 1653.(Marks illustratedp. 365.)CHARLES II POSSET-POT AND COVER. 1662.CHARLES II PORRINGER. 1669.Silver-gilt. (With marks below.) Maker, I N (possibly Euodias Inman).(In possession of Messrs. Garrard.)

THE POSSET-POTAND THEPORRINGER

COMMONWEALTH PORRINGER. 1653.(Marks illustratedp. 365.)

COMMONWEALTH PORRINGER. 1653.(Marks illustratedp. 365.)

COMMONWEALTH PORRINGER. 1653.

(Marks illustratedp. 365.)

CHARLES II POSSET-POT AND COVER. 1662.CHARLES II PORRINGER. 1669.Silver-gilt. (With marks below.) Maker, I N (possibly Euodias Inman).(In possession of Messrs. Garrard.)

CHARLES II POSSET-POT AND COVER. 1662.CHARLES II PORRINGER. 1669.Silver-gilt. (With marks below.) Maker, I N (possibly Euodias Inman).(In possession of Messrs. Garrard.)

CHARLES II POSSET-POT AND COVER. 1662.

CHARLES II PORRINGER. 1669.

Silver-gilt. (With marks below.) Maker, I N (possibly Euodias Inman).

(In possession of Messrs. Garrard.)

CHAPTER VITHE POSSET-POT AND THE PORRINGERThe antiquity of the Posset-pot—Its national use—The Porringer—The two forms contemporary with each other—Stuart examples—The seventeenth and eighteenth century potters—The merging of the two types into the bowl.A coldclimate demands hot cordials. There was no elaborate system of hot-water pipes in the draughty, cold, and damp Elizabethan mansions with their rush-covered floors. It was a necessity, apart from long and deep potations of strong drinks, to take a nightcap or caudle-cup of something hot. In the eighteenth century the drinking of hot punch superseded this. But in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the custom of the posset of hot sack with spices and having milk and eggs, as a supper beverage was universal. Not that the posset-cup was idle in the daytime. It succeeded, even if it did not replace, the standing or loving-cup at weddings and other ceremonies. “Mix a posset for the merry Sir John Falstaff,” might, and possibly did, refer to any hour of the day, for that jovial soul did not stand on ceremony as to when he drank, so long as it was copious and oft-repeated.That the posset-cup was of something thicker than mere spiced ale or hot wine is shown by Shakespeare’s “Thou shalt eat a posset to night at my house” (Merry Wives of Windsor). And Lady Macbeth, as a last act before the final commission of the treacherous crime, says:—I have drugged their possets,That death and nature do contend about them,Whether they live or die.We have seen that the caudle was curdled milk, with wine and hot spices, and that it was smoking hot. Shakespeare says, “We’ll have a posset for’t soon at night, i’ faith, at the latter end of a sea-coal fire.” It was undoubtedly hot, and it seems to have been, sometimes for medical reasons, made doubly so. Hence Dryden writes:A sparing diet did her health assure;Or sick, a pepper posset was her cure.The object of a vessel, in the end, determines its established form. Its purpose being to receive a hot caudle, demanded that the posset-pot or cup should have a cover to keep its contents warm. Its two handles never seem to have deserted it, until it became a shallow dish or bowl for broth. These handles undoubtedly served a purpose, but the love of ornament and the balance of vessels which were always of beautiful form and perfect symmetry demanded two handles, by which design they succeeded the style of the loving-cup handed around, but it is not possible to conceive that the posset-cup was other than for personal use.POSSET-CUP AND COVER.London, 1679. Cover, 1660. Height 7¹/₂ in.(By courtesy of Lord Dillon.)CHARLES II PORRINGER.London, 1666.(Photograph by courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)(In possession of A. S. M. Smedley, Esq.)In regard to early days the posset-cup has not survived. We have mainly posset-cups of the Stuart period which ran contemporary with the porringer. We might almost term this the transitional period. But the difference is apparent. Whereas the posset-cup or pot had a cover, the porringer had no cover. Otherwise in form there is little difference. But it must be borne in mind that the covered vessel was a protection against poison. When this fear was no longer prevalent the open vessel became safe.The illustrations show the various types. They belong mainly to the Stuart period. It is not possible to give a posset-pot from which the contemporaries of Falstaff drank their caudle. We can only conjecture from frequent literary references that such vessels were in common use. Apparently they have long disappeared, as there are few Tudor examples. There is a fine posset-pot and cover, of gold, of the sixteenth century, at Exeter College, Oxford.The earliest example illustrated is a Commonwealth porringer, with the hall-mark for 1653 (illustratedp. 197). Here evidently is a vessel open-mouthed, and there was no intention that it should possess a cover. It is of different form to the contemporary posset-cup, and was not used for the same purpose. Apparently it was for something intended to retain the heat to a lesser degree, hence the absence of the lid. It is futile nowadays to conjecture with exactitude for what purpose these vessels were used. But, presumably, the porringer was for something more solid and less stimulating.The date of this Puritan porringer is a memorableone. It belongs to the year when the Dutch were defeated off Portland in February, again off the North Foreland in June, and off Texel in July, when Van Tromp was killed. In the year of this porringer Oliver Cromwell forcibly dissolved the Rump Parliament. “Clad in plain grey clothes and grey worsted stockings,” Oliver sat in the House listening impatiently to Sir Harry Vane, till at length he could bear it no more. He rose, and after charging the House with injustice and self-interest, he cried, “Your hour is come; the Lord hath done with you.” Clapping his hat on his head, he strode into the middle of the House with “It is fit you should sit here no longer! You should give place to better men! You are no Parliament!” Thirty musketeers entered at a sign from their general, and the thirty members crowded to the door. The Speaker refused to quit his chair, till Harrison offered to “lend him a hand to come down.” Cromwell lifted the mace from the table. “What shall we do with this bauble?” he said; “Take it away!”[4]On the same page is illustrated a Charles II posset-pot and cover, with the date mark of London for 1662, and by its side is a small porringer of the date of 1669. This was evidently for the use of a child, which is some indication that these smaller vessels were actually used for something in the nature of food, and the possibility that they derive their name from the word “porridge” is a conjecture not to be easily dismissed.POSSET-POT AND COVER. 1683.(With marks illustrated beneath.)(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)The bowl of Stuart days has an ogee outline contractedtowards the mouth, giving it a pear-shaped form; this is common in porringers and posset-pots of the seventeenth century. In the example with the London hall-mark for 1662 the body is decorated with spheroidal swelling lozenges, giving character to the piece. The cover is plain, and heightens considerably the fine proportions, and is surmounted by a knob in baluster form. The handles are delicate and of gracefully curved form. The handles of the adjacent porringer, it will be seen, are flat. From 1653, the date of the Commonwealth porringer, to this latter small porringer, it will be seen that the handles are in a transitional stage. The upper half of the handle may be likened to a fanciful letter C, the bottom curve of which ends half-way in the interior of the handle, the handle being continued until it joins the bowl lower down. In the second example, 1662, the C stretches from the juncture of the handle with the bowl at the top to its juncture again at the lower end, the continuation of the handle below this is a slight additional outward curve. In 1669 the handle had become a letter S. The C form is slightly indicated by a break in the upper curve on the inside of the handle.A comparison of the various forms of handle illustrated in this chapter shows that the C form in combination with the S form oscillated throughout the seventeenth century. In the elaborate posset-cup and cover of 1679 (illustratedp. 201) the S form would seem to have become established; but another example, 1683 (illustratedp. 205), shows the letter C again in strong combination with the letter S in the handle.In 1685 the potter, we see, was troubled by no such fanciful problems. In the pot illustrated he makes a straightforward simple handle, best suited to his technique. Of the same date and illustrated on the same page (p. 213) is a fine James II posset-cup, and here the handle takes the form of the letter C, and again a second C for the lower half of the handle. By the year 1690 the letter S form handle in graceful curves had become established.The illustration onpage 201shows a posset-cup and cover, which is produced by the kindness of Lord Dillon. In date it is 1679 and the cover is 1660. The bowl is embossed with tulips. The handles are scrolled terms and cast. The cover is a flattened dome with plain flanged edge and embossed with tulips. The knob is a casting of four grotesque faces conjoined. Its height is 7¹/₂ inches.This cup is stated to have been presented by Charles II to his daughter, the Countess of Litchfield. The marks are “London” and I. S. in shaped shield. Mark on cover W. B. in a heart.It will be seen in comparison with the porringer of the date of 1666, illustrated on the same page, that the caryatides handles which are similar to early Italian metal-work, are part of the handle itself, and the female bust forms the swelling curve. Here in the first example of the posset-cup the head is set as though it were a thing apart and unconnected with the design of the handle in its entirety. In the lower example of the porringer the head actually becomes full face, and consequently is merely a meaningless survival of the older formand not an integral part of the design of the handle.CHARLES II PORRINGER. 1672.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)QUEEN ANNE PORRINGER.Exeter hall-mark, 1707. Maker, Edmund Richards. (Marks illustrated.)(By courtesy of Messrs. J. Ellett Lake & Son, Exeter.)The posset-pot and cover, with the London date mark for 1683, exhibits another form; its body has straighter sides. The scroll handles are similar to some of the older forms, and the woman’s head is retained. The acanthus-leaf decoration occurs on the lower part of the body, the rest being plain. Here the proportion of decorated and undecorated surface introduces another factor. It is seen on the lower portion of the Charles II porringer of the date of 1666, and it lingers in the Exeter piece of the Queen Anne period, 1707, with the addition of a decorative band three-quarters of the way up the bowl (illustratedp. 209).In the Tudor period we have seen, in regard to the mottled stoneware tankards, that the potter and the silversmith worked in sympathy with each other. In late Stuart days it cannot be said that the silversmith and the potter had very much in common. We illustrate two specimens of the days of James II of the same date, 1685. The first is a posset-pot and cover of unusual form, with steeple-like cover and baluster terminal. This is on a high foot, and the handles have a massiveness about them not usually associated with posset-cups. The year 1685 is an important date in the art of the silversmith. The Edict of Nantes was revoked, and in consequence many hundreds of Huguenot refugees, silk-weavers and metal-workers, came to this country. The Spitalfield looms and the names of French makers on the silver plate date from this influx of foreign craftsmen.Below this is a posset-cup made by the Staffordshire potter, racy of the soil, and far removed from the subtleties of the worker in silver. This is dated 1685, and inscribed “William Simpson His cup.” The handles, six in number, are eminently suited to the plastic clay. The convolutions of the smaller handle are suggestive of the glass-worker. Here the potter and the silversmith join hands, for the handle of the more elaborate piece is suggestive of the glass-worker too. It must be remembered that Venetian glass-workers had settled in London under the patronage of the Duke of Buckingham in the days of Charles II. It is not unnatural to suppose, seeing that the glass-blower, the silversmith, and the potter were all working in competition, that they cast an eye on each other’s work.There is a peculiar design embodied in the work of the old glass-workers of Venice, for centuries embosomed on the lagoons at Murano, which design is taken straight from the waters of the Adriatic. There is a little denizen of those waters, delicate and of extreme beauty, only some 3 or 4 inches long, known as the sea-horse. He swims in the blue water or curls his tail around a weed. His head is like a Roman horse with arched neck. Those who know the delightful configuration of this creature, thehippocampus antiquorum, will realize the parallel. The Venetian glass-worker adapted this design, ready to hand, as the Copenhagen potters have taken the figures of birds and animals of the Baltic to give form and colour to their work. All craftsmen havedone this, from the ancient cave-dweller in Bordeaux who scratched the reindeer in motion which he has left for posterity to criticize, to the Japanese with their fishes and birds and insects. The short-nosed sea-horse with its beautiful and graceful form has been snatched by the glass-blower and transfused in the furnace, with skilful and adept art in manipulating the pliant metal, into a handle with conventionalized form. The arched back becomes a row of bead-like ornament in the bow of the handle, a style of ornamentation which peeps out from old Italian glass goblets, still in due subjection. When it crosses the Alps into Germany the foreign glass-worker, knowing nothing of the delicate suggestion of the origin of the ornament, straightway makes the handles into huge appendages, departing more and more from the initial source of inspiration.JAMES II POSSET-CUP AND COVER. 1685.Of unusual form. With inscription, “The legacy of your dear grandmother, Mary Leigh.”(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)THE POTTER AND THE SILVERSMITH. STAFFORDSHIRE EARTHENWARE POSSET-CUP.With inscription, “William Simpson His Cup 1685.”The glass-blower of Stuart days, a craftsman in metal, and the silver worker meet at this point, and the bead-like ornament is derivative from this old form. It is shown in simpler style in the Charles II porringer of 1672 (illustratedp. 209), and in more elaborate development in the James II posset-pot. The former is nearer to nature, and possibly nearer to the glass-worker.The potter has similarly twisted his clay with equal swiftness and ease into convolutions similar to the glass-blower’s technique, but he has gone away from the original. With an elaboration far and above the three bends he has given to his plastic body in his handle, the German glass-blower has essayed to improve on this form, according to hislights; the result is that some of the German glass consists mainly in a fine elaboration of handle.In regard to the evolution of design, something should be said of the Exeter piece with the hall-mark of that city, 1707, straight from the days of Queen Anne. The maker of this piece was Edmund Richards. Did he know that in his crane-head handle he was perpetuating something that was to live to the twentieth century? To-day modern Japan has run the crane to death. In textiles and in metal-work the design of the crane appears again and again. It is found in scissors; we have before us an elaborate pair, made for the Great Exhibition in 1851, with crane handles, elaborately finished and gilded.Our last illustration terminates the history of the silver vessel intended for use for posset, or caudle, or porridge, or broth. The bowl (p. 217), or, as it is termed in the old inventory which has come down with the piece, a “Plum Broth Dish,” dates from 1697, the year of the Treaty of Ryswick, when Louis XIV recognized William III as King of Great Britain and Ireland. The maker is John Bodington.Prior to Queen Anne, this example shows all the reticence of design usually associated with the Queen Anne style. It begins a new area. The posset-pot and the silver porringer were dying or dead; the days of the punch-bowl, the tureen, and all the intricacies of the modern silver vessel for tea, for coffee, for soup, and fitted for the complexities of a more modern life, were at hand.PLUM BROTH DISH AND LADLE. WILLIAM III. 1697.Maker John Bodington. (Marks illustrated.)(In possession of Messrs. Garrard.)It is thus seen that the design of the metal-worker is perennial; it belongs to no especial period and to no particular country. The working of silver is one of the oldest arts crafts of man. “There is nothing new under the sun,” said Solomon, and although his mind was not fixed on the arts and crafts, there is an applicability about the adage. The caprice of fashion has determined for how long a period a certain form should be in use, till it was replaced by some other form—a deviation from the former or a reversion to an older form. It is the pleasure of the collector to unravel the motives which led to changes or which put a dead stop to inventiveness. Every object he examines, every specimen he owns, is another fact which stands in the long chain enabling him to pick his way from one conclusion to another. The premises are there, the data is his, if only his conclusions be sound.SALE PRICES.POSSET-POTS.Prices vary considerably, according to the character of the example.Charles II examples being from 100s. to 300s. per oz. Four examples have sold for as much as £400.PORRINGERS.Unique and early examples are just as expensive as posset-pots.Charles II specimens have realized from £300 to £600.Exceptional pieces have brought sensational prices. A Charles II example of 1661, maker I. W., sold in 1909 for £1,015 at 270s. per oz. In the same year a smaller one, made by George Gibson in 1680, sold for 330s. per oz., realizing £75.The differences in prices discernible from Charles II to late Georgian are roughly: William III, £5 to £12 per oz.; Queen Anne, £3 to £6 per oz.; George I and II, 50s. per oz.The faker has been active with so-called “Queen Anne” porringers, with special fluting and marked with the Britannia or higher standard mark. Collectors who have been taken in by these can have them assayed at the London Assay Office or elsewhere, and if the mark is forged there is a legal remedy.

THE POSSET-POT AND THE PORRINGER

The antiquity of the Posset-pot—Its national use—The Porringer—The two forms contemporary with each other—Stuart examples—The seventeenth and eighteenth century potters—The merging of the two types into the bowl.

The antiquity of the Posset-pot—Its national use—The Porringer—The two forms contemporary with each other—Stuart examples—The seventeenth and eighteenth century potters—The merging of the two types into the bowl.

A coldclimate demands hot cordials. There was no elaborate system of hot-water pipes in the draughty, cold, and damp Elizabethan mansions with their rush-covered floors. It was a necessity, apart from long and deep potations of strong drinks, to take a nightcap or caudle-cup of something hot. In the eighteenth century the drinking of hot punch superseded this. But in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the custom of the posset of hot sack with spices and having milk and eggs, as a supper beverage was universal. Not that the posset-cup was idle in the daytime. It succeeded, even if it did not replace, the standing or loving-cup at weddings and other ceremonies. “Mix a posset for the merry Sir John Falstaff,” might, and possibly did, refer to any hour of the day, for that jovial soul did not stand on ceremony as to when he drank, so long as it was copious and oft-repeated.

That the posset-cup was of something thicker than mere spiced ale or hot wine is shown by Shakespeare’s “Thou shalt eat a posset to night at my house” (Merry Wives of Windsor). And Lady Macbeth, as a last act before the final commission of the treacherous crime, says:—

I have drugged their possets,That death and nature do contend about them,Whether they live or die.

I have drugged their possets,That death and nature do contend about them,Whether they live or die.

I have drugged their possets,That death and nature do contend about them,Whether they live or die.

I have drugged their possets,

That death and nature do contend about them,

Whether they live or die.

We have seen that the caudle was curdled milk, with wine and hot spices, and that it was smoking hot. Shakespeare says, “We’ll have a posset for’t soon at night, i’ faith, at the latter end of a sea-coal fire.” It was undoubtedly hot, and it seems to have been, sometimes for medical reasons, made doubly so. Hence Dryden writes:

A sparing diet did her health assure;Or sick, a pepper posset was her cure.

A sparing diet did her health assure;Or sick, a pepper posset was her cure.

A sparing diet did her health assure;Or sick, a pepper posset was her cure.

A sparing diet did her health assure;

Or sick, a pepper posset was her cure.

The object of a vessel, in the end, determines its established form. Its purpose being to receive a hot caudle, demanded that the posset-pot or cup should have a cover to keep its contents warm. Its two handles never seem to have deserted it, until it became a shallow dish or bowl for broth. These handles undoubtedly served a purpose, but the love of ornament and the balance of vessels which were always of beautiful form and perfect symmetry demanded two handles, by which design they succeeded the style of the loving-cup handed around, but it is not possible to conceive that the posset-cup was other than for personal use.

POSSET-CUP AND COVER.London, 1679. Cover, 1660. Height 7¹/₂ in.(By courtesy of Lord Dillon.)

POSSET-CUP AND COVER.London, 1679. Cover, 1660. Height 7¹/₂ in.(By courtesy of Lord Dillon.)

POSSET-CUP AND COVER.

London, 1679. Cover, 1660. Height 7¹/₂ in.

(By courtesy of Lord Dillon.)

CHARLES II PORRINGER.London, 1666.(Photograph by courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)(In possession of A. S. M. Smedley, Esq.)

CHARLES II PORRINGER.London, 1666.(Photograph by courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)(In possession of A. S. M. Smedley, Esq.)

CHARLES II PORRINGER.

London, 1666.

(Photograph by courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

(In possession of A. S. M. Smedley, Esq.)

In regard to early days the posset-cup has not survived. We have mainly posset-cups of the Stuart period which ran contemporary with the porringer. We might almost term this the transitional period. But the difference is apparent. Whereas the posset-cup or pot had a cover, the porringer had no cover. Otherwise in form there is little difference. But it must be borne in mind that the covered vessel was a protection against poison. When this fear was no longer prevalent the open vessel became safe.

The illustrations show the various types. They belong mainly to the Stuart period. It is not possible to give a posset-pot from which the contemporaries of Falstaff drank their caudle. We can only conjecture from frequent literary references that such vessels were in common use. Apparently they have long disappeared, as there are few Tudor examples. There is a fine posset-pot and cover, of gold, of the sixteenth century, at Exeter College, Oxford.

The earliest example illustrated is a Commonwealth porringer, with the hall-mark for 1653 (illustratedp. 197). Here evidently is a vessel open-mouthed, and there was no intention that it should possess a cover. It is of different form to the contemporary posset-cup, and was not used for the same purpose. Apparently it was for something intended to retain the heat to a lesser degree, hence the absence of the lid. It is futile nowadays to conjecture with exactitude for what purpose these vessels were used. But, presumably, the porringer was for something more solid and less stimulating.

The date of this Puritan porringer is a memorableone. It belongs to the year when the Dutch were defeated off Portland in February, again off the North Foreland in June, and off Texel in July, when Van Tromp was killed. In the year of this porringer Oliver Cromwell forcibly dissolved the Rump Parliament. “Clad in plain grey clothes and grey worsted stockings,” Oliver sat in the House listening impatiently to Sir Harry Vane, till at length he could bear it no more. He rose, and after charging the House with injustice and self-interest, he cried, “Your hour is come; the Lord hath done with you.” Clapping his hat on his head, he strode into the middle of the House with “It is fit you should sit here no longer! You should give place to better men! You are no Parliament!” Thirty musketeers entered at a sign from their general, and the thirty members crowded to the door. The Speaker refused to quit his chair, till Harrison offered to “lend him a hand to come down.” Cromwell lifted the mace from the table. “What shall we do with this bauble?” he said; “Take it away!”[4]

On the same page is illustrated a Charles II posset-pot and cover, with the date mark of London for 1662, and by its side is a small porringer of the date of 1669. This was evidently for the use of a child, which is some indication that these smaller vessels were actually used for something in the nature of food, and the possibility that they derive their name from the word “porridge” is a conjecture not to be easily dismissed.

POSSET-POT AND COVER. 1683.(With marks illustrated beneath.)(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

POSSET-POT AND COVER. 1683.(With marks illustrated beneath.)(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

POSSET-POT AND COVER. 1683.

(With marks illustrated beneath.)

(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

The bowl of Stuart days has an ogee outline contractedtowards the mouth, giving it a pear-shaped form; this is common in porringers and posset-pots of the seventeenth century. In the example with the London hall-mark for 1662 the body is decorated with spheroidal swelling lozenges, giving character to the piece. The cover is plain, and heightens considerably the fine proportions, and is surmounted by a knob in baluster form. The handles are delicate and of gracefully curved form. The handles of the adjacent porringer, it will be seen, are flat. From 1653, the date of the Commonwealth porringer, to this latter small porringer, it will be seen that the handles are in a transitional stage. The upper half of the handle may be likened to a fanciful letter C, the bottom curve of which ends half-way in the interior of the handle, the handle being continued until it joins the bowl lower down. In the second example, 1662, the C stretches from the juncture of the handle with the bowl at the top to its juncture again at the lower end, the continuation of the handle below this is a slight additional outward curve. In 1669 the handle had become a letter S. The C form is slightly indicated by a break in the upper curve on the inside of the handle.

A comparison of the various forms of handle illustrated in this chapter shows that the C form in combination with the S form oscillated throughout the seventeenth century. In the elaborate posset-cup and cover of 1679 (illustratedp. 201) the S form would seem to have become established; but another example, 1683 (illustratedp. 205), shows the letter C again in strong combination with the letter S in the handle.

In 1685 the potter, we see, was troubled by no such fanciful problems. In the pot illustrated he makes a straightforward simple handle, best suited to his technique. Of the same date and illustrated on the same page (p. 213) is a fine James II posset-cup, and here the handle takes the form of the letter C, and again a second C for the lower half of the handle. By the year 1690 the letter S form handle in graceful curves had become established.

The illustration onpage 201shows a posset-cup and cover, which is produced by the kindness of Lord Dillon. In date it is 1679 and the cover is 1660. The bowl is embossed with tulips. The handles are scrolled terms and cast. The cover is a flattened dome with plain flanged edge and embossed with tulips. The knob is a casting of four grotesque faces conjoined. Its height is 7¹/₂ inches.

This cup is stated to have been presented by Charles II to his daughter, the Countess of Litchfield. The marks are “London” and I. S. in shaped shield. Mark on cover W. B. in a heart.

It will be seen in comparison with the porringer of the date of 1666, illustrated on the same page, that the caryatides handles which are similar to early Italian metal-work, are part of the handle itself, and the female bust forms the swelling curve. Here in the first example of the posset-cup the head is set as though it were a thing apart and unconnected with the design of the handle in its entirety. In the lower example of the porringer the head actually becomes full face, and consequently is merely a meaningless survival of the older formand not an integral part of the design of the handle.

CHARLES II PORRINGER. 1672.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

CHARLES II PORRINGER. 1672.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

CHARLES II PORRINGER. 1672.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

QUEEN ANNE PORRINGER.Exeter hall-mark, 1707. Maker, Edmund Richards. (Marks illustrated.)(By courtesy of Messrs. J. Ellett Lake & Son, Exeter.)

QUEEN ANNE PORRINGER.Exeter hall-mark, 1707. Maker, Edmund Richards. (Marks illustrated.)(By courtesy of Messrs. J. Ellett Lake & Son, Exeter.)

QUEEN ANNE PORRINGER.

Exeter hall-mark, 1707. Maker, Edmund Richards. (Marks illustrated.)

(By courtesy of Messrs. J. Ellett Lake & Son, Exeter.)

The posset-pot and cover, with the London date mark for 1683, exhibits another form; its body has straighter sides. The scroll handles are similar to some of the older forms, and the woman’s head is retained. The acanthus-leaf decoration occurs on the lower part of the body, the rest being plain. Here the proportion of decorated and undecorated surface introduces another factor. It is seen on the lower portion of the Charles II porringer of the date of 1666, and it lingers in the Exeter piece of the Queen Anne period, 1707, with the addition of a decorative band three-quarters of the way up the bowl (illustratedp. 209).

In the Tudor period we have seen, in regard to the mottled stoneware tankards, that the potter and the silversmith worked in sympathy with each other. In late Stuart days it cannot be said that the silversmith and the potter had very much in common. We illustrate two specimens of the days of James II of the same date, 1685. The first is a posset-pot and cover of unusual form, with steeple-like cover and baluster terminal. This is on a high foot, and the handles have a massiveness about them not usually associated with posset-cups. The year 1685 is an important date in the art of the silversmith. The Edict of Nantes was revoked, and in consequence many hundreds of Huguenot refugees, silk-weavers and metal-workers, came to this country. The Spitalfield looms and the names of French makers on the silver plate date from this influx of foreign craftsmen.

Below this is a posset-cup made by the Staffordshire potter, racy of the soil, and far removed from the subtleties of the worker in silver. This is dated 1685, and inscribed “William Simpson His cup.” The handles, six in number, are eminently suited to the plastic clay. The convolutions of the smaller handle are suggestive of the glass-worker. Here the potter and the silversmith join hands, for the handle of the more elaborate piece is suggestive of the glass-worker too. It must be remembered that Venetian glass-workers had settled in London under the patronage of the Duke of Buckingham in the days of Charles II. It is not unnatural to suppose, seeing that the glass-blower, the silversmith, and the potter were all working in competition, that they cast an eye on each other’s work.

There is a peculiar design embodied in the work of the old glass-workers of Venice, for centuries embosomed on the lagoons at Murano, which design is taken straight from the waters of the Adriatic. There is a little denizen of those waters, delicate and of extreme beauty, only some 3 or 4 inches long, known as the sea-horse. He swims in the blue water or curls his tail around a weed. His head is like a Roman horse with arched neck. Those who know the delightful configuration of this creature, thehippocampus antiquorum, will realize the parallel. The Venetian glass-worker adapted this design, ready to hand, as the Copenhagen potters have taken the figures of birds and animals of the Baltic to give form and colour to their work. All craftsmen havedone this, from the ancient cave-dweller in Bordeaux who scratched the reindeer in motion which he has left for posterity to criticize, to the Japanese with their fishes and birds and insects. The short-nosed sea-horse with its beautiful and graceful form has been snatched by the glass-blower and transfused in the furnace, with skilful and adept art in manipulating the pliant metal, into a handle with conventionalized form. The arched back becomes a row of bead-like ornament in the bow of the handle, a style of ornamentation which peeps out from old Italian glass goblets, still in due subjection. When it crosses the Alps into Germany the foreign glass-worker, knowing nothing of the delicate suggestion of the origin of the ornament, straightway makes the handles into huge appendages, departing more and more from the initial source of inspiration.

JAMES II POSSET-CUP AND COVER. 1685.Of unusual form. With inscription, “The legacy of your dear grandmother, Mary Leigh.”(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

JAMES II POSSET-CUP AND COVER. 1685.Of unusual form. With inscription, “The legacy of your dear grandmother, Mary Leigh.”(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

JAMES II POSSET-CUP AND COVER. 1685.

Of unusual form. With inscription, “The legacy of your dear grandmother, Mary Leigh.”

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

THE POTTER AND THE SILVERSMITH. STAFFORDSHIRE EARTHENWARE POSSET-CUP.With inscription, “William Simpson His Cup 1685.”

THE POTTER AND THE SILVERSMITH. STAFFORDSHIRE EARTHENWARE POSSET-CUP.With inscription, “William Simpson His Cup 1685.”

THE POTTER AND THE SILVERSMITH. STAFFORDSHIRE EARTHENWARE POSSET-CUP.

With inscription, “William Simpson His Cup 1685.”

The glass-blower of Stuart days, a craftsman in metal, and the silver worker meet at this point, and the bead-like ornament is derivative from this old form. It is shown in simpler style in the Charles II porringer of 1672 (illustratedp. 209), and in more elaborate development in the James II posset-pot. The former is nearer to nature, and possibly nearer to the glass-worker.

The potter has similarly twisted his clay with equal swiftness and ease into convolutions similar to the glass-blower’s technique, but he has gone away from the original. With an elaboration far and above the three bends he has given to his plastic body in his handle, the German glass-blower has essayed to improve on this form, according to hislights; the result is that some of the German glass consists mainly in a fine elaboration of handle.

In regard to the evolution of design, something should be said of the Exeter piece with the hall-mark of that city, 1707, straight from the days of Queen Anne. The maker of this piece was Edmund Richards. Did he know that in his crane-head handle he was perpetuating something that was to live to the twentieth century? To-day modern Japan has run the crane to death. In textiles and in metal-work the design of the crane appears again and again. It is found in scissors; we have before us an elaborate pair, made for the Great Exhibition in 1851, with crane handles, elaborately finished and gilded.

Our last illustration terminates the history of the silver vessel intended for use for posset, or caudle, or porridge, or broth. The bowl (p. 217), or, as it is termed in the old inventory which has come down with the piece, a “Plum Broth Dish,” dates from 1697, the year of the Treaty of Ryswick, when Louis XIV recognized William III as King of Great Britain and Ireland. The maker is John Bodington.

Prior to Queen Anne, this example shows all the reticence of design usually associated with the Queen Anne style. It begins a new area. The posset-pot and the silver porringer were dying or dead; the days of the punch-bowl, the tureen, and all the intricacies of the modern silver vessel for tea, for coffee, for soup, and fitted for the complexities of a more modern life, were at hand.

PLUM BROTH DISH AND LADLE. WILLIAM III. 1697.Maker John Bodington. (Marks illustrated.)(In possession of Messrs. Garrard.)

PLUM BROTH DISH AND LADLE. WILLIAM III. 1697.Maker John Bodington. (Marks illustrated.)(In possession of Messrs. Garrard.)

PLUM BROTH DISH AND LADLE. WILLIAM III. 1697.

Maker John Bodington. (Marks illustrated.)

(In possession of Messrs. Garrard.)

It is thus seen that the design of the metal-worker is perennial; it belongs to no especial period and to no particular country. The working of silver is one of the oldest arts crafts of man. “There is nothing new under the sun,” said Solomon, and although his mind was not fixed on the arts and crafts, there is an applicability about the adage. The caprice of fashion has determined for how long a period a certain form should be in use, till it was replaced by some other form—a deviation from the former or a reversion to an older form. It is the pleasure of the collector to unravel the motives which led to changes or which put a dead stop to inventiveness. Every object he examines, every specimen he owns, is another fact which stands in the long chain enabling him to pick his way from one conclusion to another. The premises are there, the data is his, if only his conclusions be sound.

POSSET-POTS.

Prices vary considerably, according to the character of the example.Charles II examples being from 100s. to 300s. per oz. Four examples have sold for as much as £400.

Prices vary considerably, according to the character of the example.

Charles II examples being from 100s. to 300s. per oz. Four examples have sold for as much as £400.

PORRINGERS.

Unique and early examples are just as expensive as posset-pots.Charles II specimens have realized from £300 to £600.Exceptional pieces have brought sensational prices. A Charles II example of 1661, maker I. W., sold in 1909 for £1,015 at 270s. per oz. In the same year a smaller one, made by George Gibson in 1680, sold for 330s. per oz., realizing £75.The differences in prices discernible from Charles II to late Georgian are roughly: William III, £5 to £12 per oz.; Queen Anne, £3 to £6 per oz.; George I and II, 50s. per oz.The faker has been active with so-called “Queen Anne” porringers, with special fluting and marked with the Britannia or higher standard mark. Collectors who have been taken in by these can have them assayed at the London Assay Office or elsewhere, and if the mark is forged there is a legal remedy.

Unique and early examples are just as expensive as posset-pots.

Charles II specimens have realized from £300 to £600.

Exceptional pieces have brought sensational prices. A Charles II example of 1661, maker I. W., sold in 1909 for £1,015 at 270s. per oz. In the same year a smaller one, made by George Gibson in 1680, sold for 330s. per oz., realizing £75.

The differences in prices discernible from Charles II to late Georgian are roughly: William III, £5 to £12 per oz.; Queen Anne, £3 to £6 per oz.; George I and II, 50s. per oz.

The faker has been active with so-called “Queen Anne” porringers, with special fluting and marked with the Britannia or higher standard mark. Collectors who have been taken in by these can have them assayed at the London Assay Office or elsewhere, and if the mark is forged there is a legal remedy.

VIITHECANDLESTICKCHARLES I CANDLESTICK. 1637.(Marks illustratedp. 361.)(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)LAMBETH DELFT CANDLESTICK.With coat of arms, and dated 1648.

THECANDLESTICK

CHARLES I CANDLESTICK. 1637.(Marks illustratedp. 361.)(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

CHARLES I CANDLESTICK. 1637.(Marks illustratedp. 361.)(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

CHARLES I CANDLESTICK. 1637.

(Marks illustratedp. 361.)

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

LAMBETH DELFT CANDLESTICK.With coat of arms, and dated 1648.

LAMBETH DELFT CANDLESTICK.With coat of arms, and dated 1648.

LAMBETH DELFT CANDLESTICK.

With coat of arms, and dated 1648.

CHAPTER VIITHE CANDLESTICKThe seventeenth-century candlestick—Early examples—The contemporary potter—Charles II examples—The eighteenth century—Queen Anne and early Georgian types—Provincial makers—The classic style—The Sheffield candlestick.Ecclesiasticalcandlesticks have been in use from earliest times. The pricket form, that is with the spike for sticking the candle on, may be seen in use to-day. This form has survived in spite of its obvious inconvenience. It might have been of use for candles of great size, but even then long candles were apt to turn over if not kept upright by the attendant priests. The pricket or spike form may be at once dismissed, although older, as being outside the field of the domestic candlestick.Whatever may have been the receptacle for candles in common domestic use in Elizabethan days, it is now lost. The candlestick has not been so fortunate as the spoon to escape the melting-pot. Even early Stuart examples are rare. Specimens of candlesticks of the first half of the seventeenth century are so rare as to be beyond the average collector’s pocket.We are enabled to produce an early example of the time of Charles I, bearing the London hall-marks for the year 1637. This is the very year that Hampden refused to pay ship-money as taxes. Under cold and unimpassioned examination, it would appear that these patriots stood really on technicalities. The country gentleman, the man of Buckinghamshire environed by cornlands, refused to pay ship-money; that is, money to be devoted to safeguarding our coasts. The men of Devon, the men of the Kentish coasts and the Essex estuaries, the Lincolnshire ports, the Yorkshire seaboard, the city of Bristol, and estuary of the Thames guarding London, these were the fit and proper persons to pay for safeguarding the shores; the country gentleman whose thoughts could not soar above the soil, straightway became a patriot because he would not co-operate with the rest of his country in paying taxes for common defence. The Dutch could sweep the Channel and Van Tromp could carry a broom in derision at his masthead, but many of the country gentlemen of the Puritan days talked of turnips, and to resist payment of ship-money was deemed patriotic.It will be seen that the example illustrated is simple in form. It is not so delicate as the brass candlestick of a slightly later day (illustratedp. 129). The bottom is like an inverted wine cup, and the straight pillar holds the candle. The marks on this are on the rim of the bottom, upside down, which has led some persons to suppose that the base might be used as a wine cup, which is absurd.CHARLES II CANDLESTICKS. LONDON, 1673.Height 11 in.(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)This type is the plainest possible, and suggests that little of any value preceded it. It leaves one with queer imaginings as to what the Tudor form may have been like. But one must not be too exacting. A glance at table manners gives modern precisians a shock. There was a common dish, at which all helped themselves. The habit of putting the hands into this dish to seize bits of meat does not seem to have been regarded as objectionable. This was in the fifteenth century. There were no soup plates till about the year 1600. Nor was there any large spoon for serving from the tureen till about a hundred years later, that is about 1700.The Lambeth delft candlestick, with coat of arms, dated 1648, is more symmetrical than the example of the silversmith. It has the platform for the grease, similar to later examples in the next reign made of gun-metal, and very heavy.Charles II ExamplesThere was an extraordinary demand for silver plate in the reign of Charles II. This is indicated in the diaries of Pepys and of Evelyn. We illustrate a pair of especial beauty and delicacy (p. 227).These candlesticks were sold at Christie’s in 1908 for £1,420. They are 11 inches in height, and they bear the London hall-mark for 1673. The barrel is short, and fluted to represent a cluster of eight small columns. The barrel is connected with a cast and vase-shaped stem, ornamented with four lobes and four acanthus leaves. The platform has voluting shells, and the base is composed of four escalopshells. There is a delicacy about these candlesticks which is Italianate in character. From the barrel to the base the lines are graceful and subtle. There is nothing like them in English silver. They suggest the fanciful design of the best Japanese art, centuries before that art had penetrated Europe. Remarkable in many respects, it is representative of the joyousness and vivacity of the Restoration; they have no forbears and no successors. They are unique.The fluted column was a form which appealed to the Carolean maker. In square bases with platforms inverted, this type departs from the fanciful curves of the pair illustrated. The straight line is predominant in the base, the platform, and the socket. Sometimes the baluster ornament of the seventeenth century is introduced in the stem.Other late Stuart forms include the type with octagonal base, sometimes plain hammered, and deep, from which the stem springs as from a pan, and other forms with fluted column still on octagonal base, which in the later days of the seventeenth century began to be more subdued in character. By the middle of the seventeenth century the platform disappears in silver candlesticks.An interesting specimen is the Charles II snuffers and tray, of the date of 1682. The snuffers are plain and flat and have the character of the handles of the porringer, of the date 1669 (illustratedp. 231). This flat openwork is peculiarly English, and belongs to the late Stuart period. It is exhibited on the handle at the back of the tray. The tray is asreticent as the silver of the Queen Anne period of the early eighteenth century.EARLY EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CANDLESTICKS.QUEEN ANNE. London, 1704.QUEEN ANNE. Exeter, 1706.GEORGE I. 1721. Maker, John Newton, London.(In possession of Messrs. Garrard.)CHARLES II SNUFFERS AND TRAY. 1682.(With marks illustrated.)(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)The Eighteenth CenturyThe candlesticks of the eighteenth century vary considerably in character. The fluted column dependent on the octagonal base, with the relic of the old platform, is retained in a band with gadrooned edge. The illustration (p. 231) shows various styles, in the opening years of the eighteenth century. The baluster ornament, so common in Stuart days, was adopted, and ran through the eighteenth century, until classic influences swept it aside. This ornament, found as a terminal in silver knobs of early date, now became elongated and assumed various forms, with swelling and undulating form, sometimes with ornamented edge, till it became absorbed with the classic form of upright fluting and urn-like nozzle.Candlesticks with removable nozzles were first introduced about 1758; the tall Corinthian column form is noticeable at this period. The urn sockets were in vogue from 1790 to 1798. It should be noted that removable nozzles when found on seventeenth-century pieces may be regarded as a later addition.The provincial candlestick maker was not behind the London maker at the end of the eighteenth century. For instance, when the Sheffield Assay Office commenced operations in 1773 the classic style was at its height. The Adam brothers had impressed their personality on furniture and on architecture. Wedgwood had diverted Staffordshire into the paths of Olympus. Here it should be saidthat “Sheffield plate,” so called, is not Sheffield silver plate. It is difficult to explain. Plate is the technical term we employ in regard to solid gold or silver. Plated things which may be either gold plated or silver plated, are of baser metal, more frequently copper, covered with a layer of gold or of silver. Sheffield has won a renown for her antique silver plated ware. But here we have Sheffield silver plate, that is Sheffield silver, with the marks of the assay office. We give an example (illustratedp. 235), twenty years after the granting of the charter to Sheffield. Candlesticks, silver and silver-plated, were the specialties of Sheffield, and very beautiful they are.The ribbon festoon with knots suggests the Louis Quinze period. This indicates the departure from the stern classic types; and the nozzle is removable, a style which was then in common use.As a study, the candlestick exhibits infinite variety. The eighteenth century, from Queen Anne to the late George III period, offers many forms. The Stuart candlestick is on another plane, and appeals to the collector of rare examples.The candle is something dead and gone; it stands on the threshold of modernity like some dim ancestral ghost of former days. The electric bulb is triumphant, paraffin is plebeian, and gas stretches back a century when Westminster Bridge was first lit by gas in 1813. Nobody has apostrophized a gas bracket or a paraffin lamp. But the candle is both historic and poetical and the candlestick offers a pleasing field to the collector.EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CANDLESTICK.Classic style. Made at Sheffield.(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)SALE PRICESPrices vary to a considerable extent. As in the case of the salt cellars, sets bring higher prices than the single examples. The differences in prices are:—EARLY EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.Sets of four£80to£100Sets of two40to70LATE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.Sets of four£20to£40Sets of two7to20Single specimens vary from £2 to £10, according to design.In buying candelabra at so much per ounce, beginners should carefully ascertain weight, as examples sold at 5s. per ounce have realized over £200 owing to their massiveness.

THE CANDLESTICK

The seventeenth-century candlestick—Early examples—The contemporary potter—Charles II examples—The eighteenth century—Queen Anne and early Georgian types—Provincial makers—The classic style—The Sheffield candlestick.

The seventeenth-century candlestick—Early examples—The contemporary potter—Charles II examples—The eighteenth century—Queen Anne and early Georgian types—Provincial makers—The classic style—The Sheffield candlestick.

Ecclesiasticalcandlesticks have been in use from earliest times. The pricket form, that is with the spike for sticking the candle on, may be seen in use to-day. This form has survived in spite of its obvious inconvenience. It might have been of use for candles of great size, but even then long candles were apt to turn over if not kept upright by the attendant priests. The pricket or spike form may be at once dismissed, although older, as being outside the field of the domestic candlestick.

Whatever may have been the receptacle for candles in common domestic use in Elizabethan days, it is now lost. The candlestick has not been so fortunate as the spoon to escape the melting-pot. Even early Stuart examples are rare. Specimens of candlesticks of the first half of the seventeenth century are so rare as to be beyond the average collector’s pocket.

We are enabled to produce an early example of the time of Charles I, bearing the London hall-marks for the year 1637. This is the very year that Hampden refused to pay ship-money as taxes. Under cold and unimpassioned examination, it would appear that these patriots stood really on technicalities. The country gentleman, the man of Buckinghamshire environed by cornlands, refused to pay ship-money; that is, money to be devoted to safeguarding our coasts. The men of Devon, the men of the Kentish coasts and the Essex estuaries, the Lincolnshire ports, the Yorkshire seaboard, the city of Bristol, and estuary of the Thames guarding London, these were the fit and proper persons to pay for safeguarding the shores; the country gentleman whose thoughts could not soar above the soil, straightway became a patriot because he would not co-operate with the rest of his country in paying taxes for common defence. The Dutch could sweep the Channel and Van Tromp could carry a broom in derision at his masthead, but many of the country gentlemen of the Puritan days talked of turnips, and to resist payment of ship-money was deemed patriotic.

It will be seen that the example illustrated is simple in form. It is not so delicate as the brass candlestick of a slightly later day (illustratedp. 129). The bottom is like an inverted wine cup, and the straight pillar holds the candle. The marks on this are on the rim of the bottom, upside down, which has led some persons to suppose that the base might be used as a wine cup, which is absurd.

CHARLES II CANDLESTICKS. LONDON, 1673.Height 11 in.(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

CHARLES II CANDLESTICKS. LONDON, 1673.Height 11 in.(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

CHARLES II CANDLESTICKS. LONDON, 1673.

Height 11 in.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

This type is the plainest possible, and suggests that little of any value preceded it. It leaves one with queer imaginings as to what the Tudor form may have been like. But one must not be too exacting. A glance at table manners gives modern precisians a shock. There was a common dish, at which all helped themselves. The habit of putting the hands into this dish to seize bits of meat does not seem to have been regarded as objectionable. This was in the fifteenth century. There were no soup plates till about the year 1600. Nor was there any large spoon for serving from the tureen till about a hundred years later, that is about 1700.

The Lambeth delft candlestick, with coat of arms, dated 1648, is more symmetrical than the example of the silversmith. It has the platform for the grease, similar to later examples in the next reign made of gun-metal, and very heavy.

Charles II Examples

There was an extraordinary demand for silver plate in the reign of Charles II. This is indicated in the diaries of Pepys and of Evelyn. We illustrate a pair of especial beauty and delicacy (p. 227).

These candlesticks were sold at Christie’s in 1908 for £1,420. They are 11 inches in height, and they bear the London hall-mark for 1673. The barrel is short, and fluted to represent a cluster of eight small columns. The barrel is connected with a cast and vase-shaped stem, ornamented with four lobes and four acanthus leaves. The platform has voluting shells, and the base is composed of four escalopshells. There is a delicacy about these candlesticks which is Italianate in character. From the barrel to the base the lines are graceful and subtle. There is nothing like them in English silver. They suggest the fanciful design of the best Japanese art, centuries before that art had penetrated Europe. Remarkable in many respects, it is representative of the joyousness and vivacity of the Restoration; they have no forbears and no successors. They are unique.

The fluted column was a form which appealed to the Carolean maker. In square bases with platforms inverted, this type departs from the fanciful curves of the pair illustrated. The straight line is predominant in the base, the platform, and the socket. Sometimes the baluster ornament of the seventeenth century is introduced in the stem.

Other late Stuart forms include the type with octagonal base, sometimes plain hammered, and deep, from which the stem springs as from a pan, and other forms with fluted column still on octagonal base, which in the later days of the seventeenth century began to be more subdued in character. By the middle of the seventeenth century the platform disappears in silver candlesticks.

An interesting specimen is the Charles II snuffers and tray, of the date of 1682. The snuffers are plain and flat and have the character of the handles of the porringer, of the date 1669 (illustratedp. 231). This flat openwork is peculiarly English, and belongs to the late Stuart period. It is exhibited on the handle at the back of the tray. The tray is asreticent as the silver of the Queen Anne period of the early eighteenth century.

EARLY EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CANDLESTICKS.QUEEN ANNE. London, 1704.QUEEN ANNE. Exeter, 1706.GEORGE I. 1721. Maker, John Newton, London.(In possession of Messrs. Garrard.)

EARLY EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CANDLESTICKS.QUEEN ANNE. London, 1704.QUEEN ANNE. Exeter, 1706.GEORGE I. 1721. Maker, John Newton, London.(In possession of Messrs. Garrard.)

EARLY EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CANDLESTICKS.

QUEEN ANNE. London, 1704.

QUEEN ANNE. London, 1704.

QUEEN ANNE. Exeter, 1706.

QUEEN ANNE. Exeter, 1706.

GEORGE I. 1721. Maker, John Newton, London.

GEORGE I. 1721. Maker, John Newton, London.

(In possession of Messrs. Garrard.)

CHARLES II SNUFFERS AND TRAY. 1682.(With marks illustrated.)(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

CHARLES II SNUFFERS AND TRAY. 1682.(With marks illustrated.)(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

CHARLES II SNUFFERS AND TRAY. 1682.

(With marks illustrated.)

(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

The Eighteenth Century

The candlesticks of the eighteenth century vary considerably in character. The fluted column dependent on the octagonal base, with the relic of the old platform, is retained in a band with gadrooned edge. The illustration (p. 231) shows various styles, in the opening years of the eighteenth century. The baluster ornament, so common in Stuart days, was adopted, and ran through the eighteenth century, until classic influences swept it aside. This ornament, found as a terminal in silver knobs of early date, now became elongated and assumed various forms, with swelling and undulating form, sometimes with ornamented edge, till it became absorbed with the classic form of upright fluting and urn-like nozzle.

Candlesticks with removable nozzles were first introduced about 1758; the tall Corinthian column form is noticeable at this period. The urn sockets were in vogue from 1790 to 1798. It should be noted that removable nozzles when found on seventeenth-century pieces may be regarded as a later addition.

The provincial candlestick maker was not behind the London maker at the end of the eighteenth century. For instance, when the Sheffield Assay Office commenced operations in 1773 the classic style was at its height. The Adam brothers had impressed their personality on furniture and on architecture. Wedgwood had diverted Staffordshire into the paths of Olympus. Here it should be saidthat “Sheffield plate,” so called, is not Sheffield silver plate. It is difficult to explain. Plate is the technical term we employ in regard to solid gold or silver. Plated things which may be either gold plated or silver plated, are of baser metal, more frequently copper, covered with a layer of gold or of silver. Sheffield has won a renown for her antique silver plated ware. But here we have Sheffield silver plate, that is Sheffield silver, with the marks of the assay office. We give an example (illustratedp. 235), twenty years after the granting of the charter to Sheffield. Candlesticks, silver and silver-plated, were the specialties of Sheffield, and very beautiful they are.

The ribbon festoon with knots suggests the Louis Quinze period. This indicates the departure from the stern classic types; and the nozzle is removable, a style which was then in common use.

As a study, the candlestick exhibits infinite variety. The eighteenth century, from Queen Anne to the late George III period, offers many forms. The Stuart candlestick is on another plane, and appeals to the collector of rare examples.

The candle is something dead and gone; it stands on the threshold of modernity like some dim ancestral ghost of former days. The electric bulb is triumphant, paraffin is plebeian, and gas stretches back a century when Westminster Bridge was first lit by gas in 1813. Nobody has apostrophized a gas bracket or a paraffin lamp. But the candle is both historic and poetical and the candlestick offers a pleasing field to the collector.

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CANDLESTICK.Classic style. Made at Sheffield.(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CANDLESTICK.Classic style. Made at Sheffield.(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CANDLESTICK.

Classic style. Made at Sheffield.

(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

Prices vary to a considerable extent. As in the case of the salt cellars, sets bring higher prices than the single examples. The differences in prices are:—

Prices vary to a considerable extent. As in the case of the salt cellars, sets bring higher prices than the single examples. The differences in prices are:—

EARLY EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

Sets of four£80to£100Sets of two40to70

LATE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.

Sets of four£20to£40Sets of two7to20

Single specimens vary from £2 to £10, according to design.In buying candelabra at so much per ounce, beginners should carefully ascertain weight, as examples sold at 5s. per ounce have realized over £200 owing to their massiveness.

Single specimens vary from £2 to £10, according to design.

In buying candelabra at so much per ounce, beginners should carefully ascertain weight, as examples sold at 5s. per ounce have realized over £200 owing to their massiveness.

VIIITHE TEAPOTTHE COFFEE-POTTHE TEA-KETTLETHE TEA-CADDYCHAPTER VIIITHE TEAPOT, THE COFFEE-POT, THE TEA-KETTLE, THE TEA-CADDYThe teapot, its early form—The seventeenth century—The eighteenth-century coffee-pot—The tea-kettle and stand—Late Georgian teapots and coffee-pots—The tea-caddy and its varieties.Thesilver plate of a country undoubtedly reflects the manners and customs of its users. The growth of luxury undoubtedly has had its influence upon the manufacture of a great number of silver articles employed in everyday use. But although the field be larger, the class of articles, to say nothing of the average artistic quality, differs in the same measure as the habits of the users. The antiquary of the twenty-first century who turns to the late nineteenth century will find marmalade-pots and pickle-forks in lieu of posset-pots and punch-ladles. He will find that cheap chemists have disseminated hair-brushes and cheap scent-bottles of inferior glass with silver rims.The earliest known teapot is of the year 1670, although Pepys tells of drinking tea in 1660. This fine specimen is a lantern-shaped teapot with a history, and is illustratedpage 243. It is inscribed, “ThisSilver tea Pott was presented to ye Comtteeof ye East India Company by ye Right HonoleGeorge Lord Berkeley of Berkeley Castle. A member of that Honourable and worthy Society and A true Hearty Louer of them. 1670.” It is engraved with the arms of the donor and of the East India Company. The maker’s mark is T. L., and the date letter and hall-marks of London are of the year 1670.In the year 1690 the form of teapot was melon-shaped, still tall, and still suggestive of a coffee-pot, made more manifest by the stopper attached at the spout by a chain. But in the eighteenth century, teapots underwent a change; they began to assume styles which have endured to the present day. Since Queen Anne sat in the Orangery in Kensington Gardens with her bosom friend “Mrs. Freeman” over a dish of tea to hear of Marlborough’s victories, the habit has become established in popular favour.The rivalry between coffee and tea and the attempt of chocolate to obtain supremacy are interesting side-lights in social history, tinctured by political bias and prejudice. Coffee claims the field first. The honour of introducing tea remains between the English and the Dutch, while that of coffee rests between the English and the French. The price of tea in 1660 was sixty shillings per pound, and Thomas Garway, tobacconist and coffee-man, was the first who retailed tea. His shop bill is the most curious and historical account of tea we have:“Tea in England hath been sold in the leaf for six pounds, and sometimes for ten pounds the pound weight, and in respect of its former scarceness anddearness it hath been only used as a regalia in high treatments and entertainments, and presents made thereof to princes and grandees till the year 1657. The said Garway did purchase a quantity thereof, the first publicly sold the said tea in leaf or drink, made according to the directions of the most knowing merchants into those Eastern countries. On the knowledge of the said Garway’s continued care and industry in obtaining the best tea, and making drink thereof, very many noblemen, physicians, merchants, etc., have resort to his house to drink the drink thereof. He sells tea from 16s. to 50s. a pound.”COFFEE-POT. 1737.Newcastle-on-Tyne.(Marks illustratedp. 399.)(In possession of Messrs. Garrard & Co.)SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY TEAPOT. 1670.Presented by Lord George Berkeley to the Honourable East India Company.(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)Here is a seventeenth-century advertisement: can Mincing Lane in the twentieth century go better?As to coffee, it is interesting to read the women’s petition to Parliament, in 1674. They complained that coffee“made men as unfruitful as the deserts whence that unhappy berry is said to be brought; that the offspring of our mighty ancestors would dwindle into a succession of apes and pygmies, and on a domestic message, a husband would stop by the way to drink a couple of cups of coffee.”This is in the vein of the modern Suffragist and on the same sub-head. In 1673 the men of England were fighting against the Dutch at the engagement off Texel to defend their hearths and homes, coffee or no coffee.Apart from the peculiar lantern shape of the first examples, teapots assumed various forms. They were tall and pear-shaped about 1690. By 1707, is Queen Anne’s day, we find them gourd or melon-shaped till about 1720. In 1725 they wereof lesser height. From the opening years of the eighteenth century to 1765, the teapots began to assume round proportions in the body. At a later date they were octagonal. In 1776 they inclined to the Sheraton style, and in 1789 to the Hepplewhite style of design, both these latter with the straight spout.That the handle was early of ebony is shown in the example illustrated (p. 247), with the London hall-marks of 1745, with the gourd-shaped body. There is something about this example which places it in the realm of the posset-pot. Its cover is surmounted by a cone ornament. Its form, strikingly apart from modern tea-table niceties, marks it as a collector’s piece. Its inscription is of historic interest.A Kettle and Stand, with spirit-lamp, is of the next year, 1746 (illustratedp. 251). It is the work of the celebrated Paul de Lamerie, whose genius in working in plate placed him in the leading position among the silver designers of his period. It must be remembered that about this time the potter came into serious competition with the silversmith, especially in regard to teapots and coffee-pots. He actually did produce, in the early examples of Bow and Worcester and Coalbrookdale, teapots in blue and white with the same round body as this tea-kettle. The spout of the potter always presented greater difficulties in technique than did the spout of the silversmith. In early types of porcelain it is in form similar to the two silver examples of teapot and tea-kettle of 1745 and 1746. But the potter could not attain to the flutings and chased ornament ofthe worker in metal. The silversmith’s spout soldered on the body, has spreading ornament eminently suitable to afford strength at the juncture.GEORGE II TEAPOT. LONDON, 1745.With pear-shaped body standing on graduated foot, with finely shaped ebony handle. Panel bearing inscription: “In token of sincere Friendship and in Honour of Success at the conquest of the Island of Cape Breton, Peter Warren, Esqr., Rear-Admiral of the Blue presents this piece of plate to Sir Willm. Pepperrell, Bart., Louisbourg, Commander to His Majesty’s Forces. 17 June, 1745.”(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)In Paul de Lamerie’s work there is, in the graceful convolutions of the handle and the equally delightful curves in the tripod legs, something essentially proper to his craft. No potter could emulate this work. It would be too capricious in firing, and if made in porcelain it would be too fragile for use. It is therefore of interest in comparing the potter’s work with that of his contemporary the plate-worker to see how in rivalry the masters of the latter craft surpassed the worker in clay by making the full use of their own particular technique.In all possibility the eighteenth century teapots were taken by silver-worker and potter alike from Chinese porcelain prototypes, which must have come over in considerable numbers in the trading days of John Company, as we see that the earliest lantern example of the seventeenth century proceeded from that worthy company, and there was a great number imported from Holland. Whether this be granted or not, it may be laid down as a rough rule for guidance that whenever the silver-worker and the potter produced results closely approaching each other in form, the worker in metal was not availing himself of the best qualities of his art. He may have been following the trammels of fashion, or he may have been a mediocre worker on a lower plane.That the potter did actually emulate the silversmith can be seen at once in the Staffordshiresilver-lustre teapots, which followed as far as possible the silver shapes. They were in use in cottages, and set on the dresser looked very imposing. If the squire’s lady had her silver, or the farmer’s wife her Sheffield plated set, the cottager had her lustre ware.In the museum at Etruria are some models carved in pear-wood of urns and bowls which Josiah Wedgwood had executed for reproduction in his ware. These remarkable carved wood vessels exhibit a strong similitude to the designs of contemporary silver plate. They illustrate the point that the potter at his highest actually did look with delight on the creations of the silversmith. It was natural that he should do so, and it was equally natural that the contemplation of them should influence his own art. There is a silver teapot designed by John Flaxman (Wedgwood’s great designer). It is melon-shaped, silver gilt, chased with scrolls, medallions, and cupids riding on dolphins. It is inscribed: “Designed by John Flaxman for his esteemed friend and generous patron Josiah Wedgwood, 1784.” The maker’s mark is I.B. under a crown, and the date letter is for 1789.KETTLE WITH STAND AND SPIRIT LAMP. 1746.Maker, Paul de Lamerie.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)The Coffee-potIn regard to the coffee-pot, there is an example of the date of 1686, now on view at the London Museum from the collection of Mr. H. D. Ellis. It will be seen that the coffee-pot was always tall; it never lessened its height to become possessed of the pear or gourd-shaped or circular body of itsrival. It actually influenced the height and form of the teapot and it was not until the end of the first quarter of the eighteenth century that the teapot threw off its similitude to the coffee-pot in regard to height; and from that date when tea-drinking had become established, it pursued its own way in design.The chocolate-pot followed in the wake of the coffee-pot and has never departed very materially from its early form. It is always rather smaller than its prototype, and may be distinguished from the coffee-pot by the handle, which in the chocolate-pot is not set opposite the spout, as is the case in the teapot and the coffee-pot, but is in the middle, set at right-angles to the spout.It is necessary to examine the customs of the period to arrive at conclusions in regard to silver. In 1697 the Earl of Bristol notes in his diary the payment “of a bill in full to Mr. Chambers for tea-kettle and lamp, weight ninety oz. eleven dwts., at six shillings and two pence.” These tea-kettles were probably no new thing, and, as coffee came first, were possibly a continuation of similar forms for the decoction of coffee. They were the forerunners of the tea-urns which became popular a century later (see illustrationp. 325). Tea and coffee and chocolate, ale and broth, and possibly canary, were all drunk by different classes of the community at the same time. Before the introduction of the eighteenth-century teacups—first from Holland and the East and later from our own porcelain factories, in the first stages without handles—the new beverage,especially in remote and unfashionable districts, was drunk from the silver porringers then in use. At the date of theTatlerthe middle classes in the country were still content with milk, water-porridge, broth, ale, or small beer for breakfast. The family of John Wesley drank small beer at every meal. By the third quarter of the eighteenth century Jonas Hanway, who introduced the umbrella to England, and John Wesley, both declaimed in vain against the prevalent tea-drinking. Just as in earlier days London apprentices were to have meat in lieu of salmon, then plentiful in the Thames, so country maids accepting service in London stipulated that they were to have tea twice a day.We are indebted to Catherine of Braganza, the Queen of Charles II, for the introduction of tea. Edmund Waller, the Court poet, who made an oration to the Puritan Parliament and saved his neck, has an “Ode on Tea” eulogizing Catherine and the herb. By the time of Queen Anne tea-drinking had become a fixed habit. Bishop Burnet, who died in 1715, drank twenty-five cups in a morning. There was Dr. Johnson at the other end of the century who drank his sixteen cups at a sitting.COFFEE-POTS.GEORGE III.c.1770.GEORGE II.c.1730.GEORGE III.c.1775.COFFEE-POTS AND TEAPOTS. LATE GEORGE III PERIOD.(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)A page of teapots and coffee-pots of varying periods of the eighteenth century shows the styles in vogue (illustratedp. 255). The upper group shows a coffee-pot about 1730 with ebony handle, and rather smaller than some of the later forms. This may be compared with the Newcastle coffee-pot, of 1737, showing similar character (p. 243). This really is the established form of the coffee-pot,which has lasted to the twentieth century, in spite of various deflections in style which were only transitory. By the last quarter of the eighteenth century it had become more ornate in character. Its decoration was rococo in style, and it became massive and impressive in size. It will be observed that in the specimen of about 1775, on the right, the festoons had become a prominent form of ornament. The handles in both these larger and later types are broken, with a point on the lower half turning outwards. The Edinburgh example of 1769 (illustratedp. 321) shows the same character.An illustration of a fine coffee-pot with the London hall-mark for 1741 is given as aFrontispieceto this volume. It was made by Peter Archambo, and bears his initialsP.A.in script in an oval, broken shield. The lines of this example are of exceptional grace. The proportions of the body are well balanced. The circular foot with its fine gradations adds a lightness to the design. The lid is of fine proportions, and is terminated by a plain cone ornament giving height to the piece. The handle is of ebony and of pleasing curves. The shaped spout has a terminal ornament of baluster form joined to the body, which produces an effect at once original and exquisitely harmonious.This example is produced by the kindness of Messrs. Carrington & Co. It belongs to the stormy years of George II and the war of the Austrian Succession. Frederick of Prussia had seized the rich province of Silesia, as one of the claimants for the dominions of Maria Theresa of Austria. Carteretcame into power on the fall of Walpole. “What is it to me,” he said, “who is judge or who is bishop? It is my business to make kings and emperors, and to maintain the balance of Europe.” In 1743, at the Battle of Dettingen, was the last occasion an English sovereign was in the field, until His Majesty George V broke that precedent by visiting the British trenches in Flanders.The lower group onpage 255belongs to the late George III period. The coffee-pot and teapot on the left belong to the same set. The flat, spreading knob to the lid is a form of ornament which succeeded the long-established baluster form and continued with variations to modern days, and is found in cheap Britannia metal teapots for common use in early nineteenth-century days. The others on the right exhibit novel features. The spreading mouth of the pot surmounted by an overhanging lid is a form which was readily seized by the potter. Some of the early Staffordshire teapots, notably those by Wedgwood, are in this style, as it was an easy shape for the potter to work. The spout, apart from its position low down on the body, is especially a potter’s form. The coffee-pot at the top, in urn form, with its long foot to give it the requisite height, is uncommon and did not long survive. The teapot beneath it has a stand, another innovation adopted by the potter.EARLY FORMS OF TEA-CADDY: SQUARE AND ROUND.GEORGE I. 1718 (EXETER).GEORGE II. 1730 (LONDON).LATE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY TYPES: OVAL IN FORM.GEORGE III. 1775 (LONDON).GEORGE III. 1784 (LONDON).Showing evolution in form culminating in the Sheraton tea-caddy.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)The Tea-caddyThe early forms of tea-caddy were square or round. It may be imagined that so precious a beverage hadto be stored carefully. Hence the receptacles for tea were somewhat luxurious in character. We illustrate a square type representative of the early days of the eighteenth century (illustratedp. 259). This example was made at Exeter. The South Sea Bubble was just about to be blown at the formation of the South Sea Company to take over the national debt. Such a specimen is of rarity and is worth about £40 or £50. The round example adjacent is of London make with the hall-marks for 1730, in the opening years of George II, straight from the days when Sir Robert Walpole governed England.The late eighteenth-century types were oval in form. The illustration of two examples (p. 259) shows this style. The left-hand one is in date 1775, and its fellow has the London hall-marks for 1784. These show very clearly the evolution in form culminating in the satinwood Sheraton variety tea-caddy so much sought after by collectors. The lines of the silversmith became coincident with the worker in rare woods. They touch at this date. If one takes Chippendale’sDirectoror Sheraton’s design books we can see the progress of the cabinet-maker, first in mahogany and then in satin and other beautifully coloured woods, in arriving at a casket similar in character to the silver-worker’s design.Half-way between the early and late eighteenth century styles we illustrate (p. 263) a set of Tea-caddies and a Sugar-box, in date 1760, showing where the silversmith adhered to the higher plane of his technique, equally evading the plagiarism of the potter or the cabinet-maker. This set of threevessels is indisputably metal in every inch of their construction. The bases are reminiscent of the floral refinements of the Charles II and James II periods. The bowls have a rotundity and exquisite sprightliness in form, relieved by chasing that defies the woodworker and cannot be imitated by the potter. The knobs appertain so strongly to the metal-worker that they are inimitable. This set, therefore, stands as being exceptionally interesting in exhibiting the work of the artist in silver kept on a high level apart from extraneous influences.The later teapot cannot be said to have much to commend it, if it be with straight spout and of oval or geometric form. Oftentimes it is a woodworker’s design with additions. The cabinet-maker has not essayed to make a wooden teapot. But the silversmith has completed the hiatus. Take the tea-caddy of 1784 (illustratedp. 259), add a straight metal spout and a handle; the result is a teapot; but it can hardly lay claim to being in the first rank of design. It stands with the modern potter’s results, exceptionally fine in their own field—round, hexagonal, octagonal, oval, square, or of many other forms, all suited to his plastic art, but the silver-worker should stand on a plane apart, and in the best periods he did.SALE PRICESCOFFEE-POTS.Queen Anne coffee-pots realize from 50s. to 60s. per oz.George I coffee-pots about £1 per oz., and George II from 10s. to 13s. per oz.George III coffee-pots bring from 7s. to 10s. per oz. and George IV and William IV about 5s. or 6s. per oz.PAIR OF GEORGE II TEA-CADDIES AND SUGAR-BOX. LONDON, 1760.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)TEAPOTS.All teapots before George I are rare, and bring large prices.Queen Anne teapots bring £5 to £10 per oz., and specimens sell for £50 to £80.On the other hand George II teapots are sold from 15s. to 40s. per oz.; George II and George IV examples sell for 10s. to 15s. per oz.TEA-KETTLES.Queen Anne, with stand and lamp (1709), by N. Locke, sold in 1909 for 200s. per oz., £243.George I, with stand and spirit-lamp (1715), 130s. per oz., £158.George II, with stand and spirit-lamp (1738), 38s. per oz., £103.TEA-CADDIES.Queen Anne, octagonal (1710), 75s. per oz., £27.Caddies (2) by Paul de Lamerie (1747), 160s. per oz., £243.George III, oblong (1760), 30s. per oz., £12.

THE TEAPOTTHE COFFEE-POTTHE TEA-KETTLETHE TEA-CADDY

THE TEAPOT, THE COFFEE-POT, THE TEA-KETTLE, THE TEA-CADDY

The teapot, its early form—The seventeenth century—The eighteenth-century coffee-pot—The tea-kettle and stand—Late Georgian teapots and coffee-pots—The tea-caddy and its varieties.

The teapot, its early form—The seventeenth century—The eighteenth-century coffee-pot—The tea-kettle and stand—Late Georgian teapots and coffee-pots—The tea-caddy and its varieties.

Thesilver plate of a country undoubtedly reflects the manners and customs of its users. The growth of luxury undoubtedly has had its influence upon the manufacture of a great number of silver articles employed in everyday use. But although the field be larger, the class of articles, to say nothing of the average artistic quality, differs in the same measure as the habits of the users. The antiquary of the twenty-first century who turns to the late nineteenth century will find marmalade-pots and pickle-forks in lieu of posset-pots and punch-ladles. He will find that cheap chemists have disseminated hair-brushes and cheap scent-bottles of inferior glass with silver rims.

The earliest known teapot is of the year 1670, although Pepys tells of drinking tea in 1660. This fine specimen is a lantern-shaped teapot with a history, and is illustratedpage 243. It is inscribed, “ThisSilver tea Pott was presented to ye Comtteeof ye East India Company by ye Right HonoleGeorge Lord Berkeley of Berkeley Castle. A member of that Honourable and worthy Society and A true Hearty Louer of them. 1670.” It is engraved with the arms of the donor and of the East India Company. The maker’s mark is T. L., and the date letter and hall-marks of London are of the year 1670.

In the year 1690 the form of teapot was melon-shaped, still tall, and still suggestive of a coffee-pot, made more manifest by the stopper attached at the spout by a chain. But in the eighteenth century, teapots underwent a change; they began to assume styles which have endured to the present day. Since Queen Anne sat in the Orangery in Kensington Gardens with her bosom friend “Mrs. Freeman” over a dish of tea to hear of Marlborough’s victories, the habit has become established in popular favour.

The rivalry between coffee and tea and the attempt of chocolate to obtain supremacy are interesting side-lights in social history, tinctured by political bias and prejudice. Coffee claims the field first. The honour of introducing tea remains between the English and the Dutch, while that of coffee rests between the English and the French. The price of tea in 1660 was sixty shillings per pound, and Thomas Garway, tobacconist and coffee-man, was the first who retailed tea. His shop bill is the most curious and historical account of tea we have:

“Tea in England hath been sold in the leaf for six pounds, and sometimes for ten pounds the pound weight, and in respect of its former scarceness anddearness it hath been only used as a regalia in high treatments and entertainments, and presents made thereof to princes and grandees till the year 1657. The said Garway did purchase a quantity thereof, the first publicly sold the said tea in leaf or drink, made according to the directions of the most knowing merchants into those Eastern countries. On the knowledge of the said Garway’s continued care and industry in obtaining the best tea, and making drink thereof, very many noblemen, physicians, merchants, etc., have resort to his house to drink the drink thereof. He sells tea from 16s. to 50s. a pound.”

“Tea in England hath been sold in the leaf for six pounds, and sometimes for ten pounds the pound weight, and in respect of its former scarceness anddearness it hath been only used as a regalia in high treatments and entertainments, and presents made thereof to princes and grandees till the year 1657. The said Garway did purchase a quantity thereof, the first publicly sold the said tea in leaf or drink, made according to the directions of the most knowing merchants into those Eastern countries. On the knowledge of the said Garway’s continued care and industry in obtaining the best tea, and making drink thereof, very many noblemen, physicians, merchants, etc., have resort to his house to drink the drink thereof. He sells tea from 16s. to 50s. a pound.”

COFFEE-POT. 1737.Newcastle-on-Tyne.(Marks illustratedp. 399.)(In possession of Messrs. Garrard & Co.)

COFFEE-POT. 1737.Newcastle-on-Tyne.(Marks illustratedp. 399.)(In possession of Messrs. Garrard & Co.)

COFFEE-POT. 1737.

Newcastle-on-Tyne.

(Marks illustratedp. 399.)

(In possession of Messrs. Garrard & Co.)

SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY TEAPOT. 1670.Presented by Lord George Berkeley to the Honourable East India Company.(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY TEAPOT. 1670.Presented by Lord George Berkeley to the Honourable East India Company.(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY TEAPOT. 1670.

Presented by Lord George Berkeley to the Honourable East India Company.

(At Victoria and Albert Museum.)

Here is a seventeenth-century advertisement: can Mincing Lane in the twentieth century go better?

As to coffee, it is interesting to read the women’s petition to Parliament, in 1674. They complained that coffee

“made men as unfruitful as the deserts whence that unhappy berry is said to be brought; that the offspring of our mighty ancestors would dwindle into a succession of apes and pygmies, and on a domestic message, a husband would stop by the way to drink a couple of cups of coffee.”

“made men as unfruitful as the deserts whence that unhappy berry is said to be brought; that the offspring of our mighty ancestors would dwindle into a succession of apes and pygmies, and on a domestic message, a husband would stop by the way to drink a couple of cups of coffee.”

This is in the vein of the modern Suffragist and on the same sub-head. In 1673 the men of England were fighting against the Dutch at the engagement off Texel to defend their hearths and homes, coffee or no coffee.

Apart from the peculiar lantern shape of the first examples, teapots assumed various forms. They were tall and pear-shaped about 1690. By 1707, is Queen Anne’s day, we find them gourd or melon-shaped till about 1720. In 1725 they wereof lesser height. From the opening years of the eighteenth century to 1765, the teapots began to assume round proportions in the body. At a later date they were octagonal. In 1776 they inclined to the Sheraton style, and in 1789 to the Hepplewhite style of design, both these latter with the straight spout.

That the handle was early of ebony is shown in the example illustrated (p. 247), with the London hall-marks of 1745, with the gourd-shaped body. There is something about this example which places it in the realm of the posset-pot. Its cover is surmounted by a cone ornament. Its form, strikingly apart from modern tea-table niceties, marks it as a collector’s piece. Its inscription is of historic interest.

A Kettle and Stand, with spirit-lamp, is of the next year, 1746 (illustratedp. 251). It is the work of the celebrated Paul de Lamerie, whose genius in working in plate placed him in the leading position among the silver designers of his period. It must be remembered that about this time the potter came into serious competition with the silversmith, especially in regard to teapots and coffee-pots. He actually did produce, in the early examples of Bow and Worcester and Coalbrookdale, teapots in blue and white with the same round body as this tea-kettle. The spout of the potter always presented greater difficulties in technique than did the spout of the silversmith. In early types of porcelain it is in form similar to the two silver examples of teapot and tea-kettle of 1745 and 1746. But the potter could not attain to the flutings and chased ornament ofthe worker in metal. The silversmith’s spout soldered on the body, has spreading ornament eminently suitable to afford strength at the juncture.

GEORGE II TEAPOT. LONDON, 1745.With pear-shaped body standing on graduated foot, with finely shaped ebony handle. Panel bearing inscription: “In token of sincere Friendship and in Honour of Success at the conquest of the Island of Cape Breton, Peter Warren, Esqr., Rear-Admiral of the Blue presents this piece of plate to Sir Willm. Pepperrell, Bart., Louisbourg, Commander to His Majesty’s Forces. 17 June, 1745.”(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

GEORGE II TEAPOT. LONDON, 1745.With pear-shaped body standing on graduated foot, with finely shaped ebony handle. Panel bearing inscription: “In token of sincere Friendship and in Honour of Success at the conquest of the Island of Cape Breton, Peter Warren, Esqr., Rear-Admiral of the Blue presents this piece of plate to Sir Willm. Pepperrell, Bart., Louisbourg, Commander to His Majesty’s Forces. 17 June, 1745.”(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

GEORGE II TEAPOT. LONDON, 1745.

With pear-shaped body standing on graduated foot, with finely shaped ebony handle. Panel bearing inscription: “In token of sincere Friendship and in Honour of Success at the conquest of the Island of Cape Breton, Peter Warren, Esqr., Rear-Admiral of the Blue presents this piece of plate to Sir Willm. Pepperrell, Bart., Louisbourg, Commander to His Majesty’s Forces. 17 June, 1745.”

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

In Paul de Lamerie’s work there is, in the graceful convolutions of the handle and the equally delightful curves in the tripod legs, something essentially proper to his craft. No potter could emulate this work. It would be too capricious in firing, and if made in porcelain it would be too fragile for use. It is therefore of interest in comparing the potter’s work with that of his contemporary the plate-worker to see how in rivalry the masters of the latter craft surpassed the worker in clay by making the full use of their own particular technique.

In all possibility the eighteenth century teapots were taken by silver-worker and potter alike from Chinese porcelain prototypes, which must have come over in considerable numbers in the trading days of John Company, as we see that the earliest lantern example of the seventeenth century proceeded from that worthy company, and there was a great number imported from Holland. Whether this be granted or not, it may be laid down as a rough rule for guidance that whenever the silver-worker and the potter produced results closely approaching each other in form, the worker in metal was not availing himself of the best qualities of his art. He may have been following the trammels of fashion, or he may have been a mediocre worker on a lower plane.

That the potter did actually emulate the silversmith can be seen at once in the Staffordshiresilver-lustre teapots, which followed as far as possible the silver shapes. They were in use in cottages, and set on the dresser looked very imposing. If the squire’s lady had her silver, or the farmer’s wife her Sheffield plated set, the cottager had her lustre ware.

In the museum at Etruria are some models carved in pear-wood of urns and bowls which Josiah Wedgwood had executed for reproduction in his ware. These remarkable carved wood vessels exhibit a strong similitude to the designs of contemporary silver plate. They illustrate the point that the potter at his highest actually did look with delight on the creations of the silversmith. It was natural that he should do so, and it was equally natural that the contemplation of them should influence his own art. There is a silver teapot designed by John Flaxman (Wedgwood’s great designer). It is melon-shaped, silver gilt, chased with scrolls, medallions, and cupids riding on dolphins. It is inscribed: “Designed by John Flaxman for his esteemed friend and generous patron Josiah Wedgwood, 1784.” The maker’s mark is I.B. under a crown, and the date letter is for 1789.

KETTLE WITH STAND AND SPIRIT LAMP. 1746.Maker, Paul de Lamerie.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

KETTLE WITH STAND AND SPIRIT LAMP. 1746.Maker, Paul de Lamerie.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

KETTLE WITH STAND AND SPIRIT LAMP. 1746.

Maker, Paul de Lamerie.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

The Coffee-pot

In regard to the coffee-pot, there is an example of the date of 1686, now on view at the London Museum from the collection of Mr. H. D. Ellis. It will be seen that the coffee-pot was always tall; it never lessened its height to become possessed of the pear or gourd-shaped or circular body of itsrival. It actually influenced the height and form of the teapot and it was not until the end of the first quarter of the eighteenth century that the teapot threw off its similitude to the coffee-pot in regard to height; and from that date when tea-drinking had become established, it pursued its own way in design.

The chocolate-pot followed in the wake of the coffee-pot and has never departed very materially from its early form. It is always rather smaller than its prototype, and may be distinguished from the coffee-pot by the handle, which in the chocolate-pot is not set opposite the spout, as is the case in the teapot and the coffee-pot, but is in the middle, set at right-angles to the spout.

It is necessary to examine the customs of the period to arrive at conclusions in regard to silver. In 1697 the Earl of Bristol notes in his diary the payment “of a bill in full to Mr. Chambers for tea-kettle and lamp, weight ninety oz. eleven dwts., at six shillings and two pence.” These tea-kettles were probably no new thing, and, as coffee came first, were possibly a continuation of similar forms for the decoction of coffee. They were the forerunners of the tea-urns which became popular a century later (see illustrationp. 325). Tea and coffee and chocolate, ale and broth, and possibly canary, were all drunk by different classes of the community at the same time. Before the introduction of the eighteenth-century teacups—first from Holland and the East and later from our own porcelain factories, in the first stages without handles—the new beverage,especially in remote and unfashionable districts, was drunk from the silver porringers then in use. At the date of theTatlerthe middle classes in the country were still content with milk, water-porridge, broth, ale, or small beer for breakfast. The family of John Wesley drank small beer at every meal. By the third quarter of the eighteenth century Jonas Hanway, who introduced the umbrella to England, and John Wesley, both declaimed in vain against the prevalent tea-drinking. Just as in earlier days London apprentices were to have meat in lieu of salmon, then plentiful in the Thames, so country maids accepting service in London stipulated that they were to have tea twice a day.

We are indebted to Catherine of Braganza, the Queen of Charles II, for the introduction of tea. Edmund Waller, the Court poet, who made an oration to the Puritan Parliament and saved his neck, has an “Ode on Tea” eulogizing Catherine and the herb. By the time of Queen Anne tea-drinking had become a fixed habit. Bishop Burnet, who died in 1715, drank twenty-five cups in a morning. There was Dr. Johnson at the other end of the century who drank his sixteen cups at a sitting.

COFFEE-POTS.GEORGE III.c.1770.GEORGE II.c.1730.GEORGE III.c.1775.

COFFEE-POTS.GEORGE III.c.1770.GEORGE II.c.1730.GEORGE III.c.1775.

COFFEE-POTS.

GEORGE III.c.1770.

GEORGE III.c.1770.

GEORGE II.c.1730.

GEORGE II.c.1730.

GEORGE III.c.1775.

GEORGE III.c.1775.

COFFEE-POTS AND TEAPOTS. LATE GEORGE III PERIOD.(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

COFFEE-POTS AND TEAPOTS. LATE GEORGE III PERIOD.(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

COFFEE-POTS AND TEAPOTS. LATE GEORGE III PERIOD.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Crichton Brothers.)

A page of teapots and coffee-pots of varying periods of the eighteenth century shows the styles in vogue (illustratedp. 255). The upper group shows a coffee-pot about 1730 with ebony handle, and rather smaller than some of the later forms. This may be compared with the Newcastle coffee-pot, of 1737, showing similar character (p. 243). This really is the established form of the coffee-pot,which has lasted to the twentieth century, in spite of various deflections in style which were only transitory. By the last quarter of the eighteenth century it had become more ornate in character. Its decoration was rococo in style, and it became massive and impressive in size. It will be observed that in the specimen of about 1775, on the right, the festoons had become a prominent form of ornament. The handles in both these larger and later types are broken, with a point on the lower half turning outwards. The Edinburgh example of 1769 (illustratedp. 321) shows the same character.

An illustration of a fine coffee-pot with the London hall-mark for 1741 is given as aFrontispieceto this volume. It was made by Peter Archambo, and bears his initialsP.A.in script in an oval, broken shield. The lines of this example are of exceptional grace. The proportions of the body are well balanced. The circular foot with its fine gradations adds a lightness to the design. The lid is of fine proportions, and is terminated by a plain cone ornament giving height to the piece. The handle is of ebony and of pleasing curves. The shaped spout has a terminal ornament of baluster form joined to the body, which produces an effect at once original and exquisitely harmonious.

This example is produced by the kindness of Messrs. Carrington & Co. It belongs to the stormy years of George II and the war of the Austrian Succession. Frederick of Prussia had seized the rich province of Silesia, as one of the claimants for the dominions of Maria Theresa of Austria. Carteretcame into power on the fall of Walpole. “What is it to me,” he said, “who is judge or who is bishop? It is my business to make kings and emperors, and to maintain the balance of Europe.” In 1743, at the Battle of Dettingen, was the last occasion an English sovereign was in the field, until His Majesty George V broke that precedent by visiting the British trenches in Flanders.

The lower group onpage 255belongs to the late George III period. The coffee-pot and teapot on the left belong to the same set. The flat, spreading knob to the lid is a form of ornament which succeeded the long-established baluster form and continued with variations to modern days, and is found in cheap Britannia metal teapots for common use in early nineteenth-century days. The others on the right exhibit novel features. The spreading mouth of the pot surmounted by an overhanging lid is a form which was readily seized by the potter. Some of the early Staffordshire teapots, notably those by Wedgwood, are in this style, as it was an easy shape for the potter to work. The spout, apart from its position low down on the body, is especially a potter’s form. The coffee-pot at the top, in urn form, with its long foot to give it the requisite height, is uncommon and did not long survive. The teapot beneath it has a stand, another innovation adopted by the potter.

EARLY FORMS OF TEA-CADDY: SQUARE AND ROUND.GEORGE I. 1718 (EXETER).GEORGE II. 1730 (LONDON).

EARLY FORMS OF TEA-CADDY: SQUARE AND ROUND.GEORGE I. 1718 (EXETER).GEORGE II. 1730 (LONDON).

EARLY FORMS OF TEA-CADDY: SQUARE AND ROUND.

GEORGE I. 1718 (EXETER).

GEORGE I. 1718 (EXETER).

GEORGE II. 1730 (LONDON).

GEORGE II. 1730 (LONDON).

LATE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY TYPES: OVAL IN FORM.GEORGE III. 1775 (LONDON).GEORGE III. 1784 (LONDON).Showing evolution in form culminating in the Sheraton tea-caddy.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

LATE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY TYPES: OVAL IN FORM.GEORGE III. 1775 (LONDON).GEORGE III. 1784 (LONDON).Showing evolution in form culminating in the Sheraton tea-caddy.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

LATE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY TYPES: OVAL IN FORM.

GEORGE III. 1775 (LONDON).

GEORGE III. 1775 (LONDON).

GEORGE III. 1784 (LONDON).

GEORGE III. 1784 (LONDON).

Showing evolution in form culminating in the Sheraton tea-caddy.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

The Tea-caddy

The early forms of tea-caddy were square or round. It may be imagined that so precious a beverage hadto be stored carefully. Hence the receptacles for tea were somewhat luxurious in character. We illustrate a square type representative of the early days of the eighteenth century (illustratedp. 259). This example was made at Exeter. The South Sea Bubble was just about to be blown at the formation of the South Sea Company to take over the national debt. Such a specimen is of rarity and is worth about £40 or £50. The round example adjacent is of London make with the hall-marks for 1730, in the opening years of George II, straight from the days when Sir Robert Walpole governed England.

The late eighteenth-century types were oval in form. The illustration of two examples (p. 259) shows this style. The left-hand one is in date 1775, and its fellow has the London hall-marks for 1784. These show very clearly the evolution in form culminating in the satinwood Sheraton variety tea-caddy so much sought after by collectors. The lines of the silversmith became coincident with the worker in rare woods. They touch at this date. If one takes Chippendale’sDirectoror Sheraton’s design books we can see the progress of the cabinet-maker, first in mahogany and then in satin and other beautifully coloured woods, in arriving at a casket similar in character to the silver-worker’s design.

Half-way between the early and late eighteenth century styles we illustrate (p. 263) a set of Tea-caddies and a Sugar-box, in date 1760, showing where the silversmith adhered to the higher plane of his technique, equally evading the plagiarism of the potter or the cabinet-maker. This set of threevessels is indisputably metal in every inch of their construction. The bases are reminiscent of the floral refinements of the Charles II and James II periods. The bowls have a rotundity and exquisite sprightliness in form, relieved by chasing that defies the woodworker and cannot be imitated by the potter. The knobs appertain so strongly to the metal-worker that they are inimitable. This set, therefore, stands as being exceptionally interesting in exhibiting the work of the artist in silver kept on a high level apart from extraneous influences.

The later teapot cannot be said to have much to commend it, if it be with straight spout and of oval or geometric form. Oftentimes it is a woodworker’s design with additions. The cabinet-maker has not essayed to make a wooden teapot. But the silversmith has completed the hiatus. Take the tea-caddy of 1784 (illustratedp. 259), add a straight metal spout and a handle; the result is a teapot; but it can hardly lay claim to being in the first rank of design. It stands with the modern potter’s results, exceptionally fine in their own field—round, hexagonal, octagonal, oval, square, or of many other forms, all suited to his plastic art, but the silver-worker should stand on a plane apart, and in the best periods he did.

COFFEE-POTS.

Queen Anne coffee-pots realize from 50s. to 60s. per oz.George I coffee-pots about £1 per oz., and George II from 10s. to 13s. per oz.George III coffee-pots bring from 7s. to 10s. per oz. and George IV and William IV about 5s. or 6s. per oz.

Queen Anne coffee-pots realize from 50s. to 60s. per oz.

George I coffee-pots about £1 per oz., and George II from 10s. to 13s. per oz.

George III coffee-pots bring from 7s. to 10s. per oz. and George IV and William IV about 5s. or 6s. per oz.

PAIR OF GEORGE II TEA-CADDIES AND SUGAR-BOX. LONDON, 1760.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

PAIR OF GEORGE II TEA-CADDIES AND SUGAR-BOX. LONDON, 1760.(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

PAIR OF GEORGE II TEA-CADDIES AND SUGAR-BOX. LONDON, 1760.

(By courtesy of Messrs. Elkington & Co.)

TEAPOTS.

All teapots before George I are rare, and bring large prices.Queen Anne teapots bring £5 to £10 per oz., and specimens sell for £50 to £80.On the other hand George II teapots are sold from 15s. to 40s. per oz.; George II and George IV examples sell for 10s. to 15s. per oz.

All teapots before George I are rare, and bring large prices.

Queen Anne teapots bring £5 to £10 per oz., and specimens sell for £50 to £80.

On the other hand George II teapots are sold from 15s. to 40s. per oz.; George II and George IV examples sell for 10s. to 15s. per oz.

TEA-KETTLES.

Queen Anne, with stand and lamp (1709), by N. Locke, sold in 1909 for 200s. per oz., £243.George I, with stand and spirit-lamp (1715), 130s. per oz., £158.George II, with stand and spirit-lamp (1738), 38s. per oz., £103.

Queen Anne, with stand and lamp (1709), by N. Locke, sold in 1909 for 200s. per oz., £243.

George I, with stand and spirit-lamp (1715), 130s. per oz., £158.

George II, with stand and spirit-lamp (1738), 38s. per oz., £103.

TEA-CADDIES.

Queen Anne, octagonal (1710), 75s. per oz., £27.Caddies (2) by Paul de Lamerie (1747), 160s. per oz., £243.George III, oblong (1760), 30s. per oz., £12.

Queen Anne, octagonal (1710), 75s. per oz., £27.

Caddies (2) by Paul de Lamerie (1747), 160s. per oz., £243.

George III, oblong (1760), 30s. per oz., £12.

Back to IndexNext